Model price comparison — what each model costs on your own traffic
For the models your workspace may use, see the net-effective price per 1M tokens, a projected monthly cost from your own recent volume, and what we actually know about each model's quality — with honest unknowns.
The Models screen (/models) compares, for the models your workspace may use, what
each one would cost and what we actually know about its quality. It is grounded in your
own traffic, not a vendor benchmark — the comparison the product's core claim rests on,
built so it never implies a quality equivalence we have not measured.
What each column means
- From / runs in — a model's provenance and hosting: the developing lab's jurisdiction and whether its weights are open, and where the specific offer runs. A custom endpoint you added reads "origin not established" — we never claim provenance we do not hold.
- Price / 1M tokens — the net-effective input and output price per 1M tokens (your negotiated rate card when you have one, otherwise the published list price), plus the cached-input and cache-write rates when the model has them. All prices come from the one pricing engine the gateway and your savings statements use — there is no second number.
- Projected monthly — what your last 30 days of recorded token volume would cost at that model's rates. This is an estimate, labelled as such, and it is never your realized spend. The figure and the token counts it is based on are shown above the table.
- Quality evidence — what your workspace has actually measured. A model that an evaluation ran on your traffic reads as met-your-bar, kept-as-best-trade-off, or inconclusive; a model with no evaluation reads "not tested on your traffic yet" with a link to start one.
What "price unknown" means
When the catalog has no usable price for a model — or a custom endpoint has no price
configured — the row reads "price unknown". We never render $0 for a model whose
price we cannot resolve, and an unpriced model never contributes to any total: its cost
is unknown, not free.
An unpriced model is also not callable through the gateway: a request for it is refused
before dispatch with the model_unpriced error (HTTP 403, not retryable), because a call
whose cost cannot be computed would otherwise be recorded as $0 — invisible to your spend caps,
budgets and savings. Nothing reaches the provider and nothing is billed. To use such a model,
declare pricing on the custom provider (an explicit 0 is allowed for a free self-hosted
endpoint), or ask for the model to be priced in the catalog. Served requests record their cost basis
as priced (the offer's own price) or derived (a dated snapshot priced from the model it
serves).
What the comparison does and does not prove
- It does show you real prices and a real projection built from your own volume, so you can compare candidates on the basis that actually matters to your bill.
- It does show a model as unavailable, with the reason, when your model policy (country, provider, or the PHI/BAA gate) denies it — listed honestly, never silently dropped, and never counted toward a total.
- It does not assert that two models are equal in quality. Quality evidence appears only where your workspace has measured it; everywhere else the row says so plainly.
- It does not publish a vendor benchmark score or a percentage-saved headline. The honest basis is your own traffic, and every estimate carries its methodology.
To turn "not tested on your traffic yet" into evidence, start an evaluation for the call type from the Evals surface; qualified verdicts then appear here against the model they concern.